1 2025:CGHC:39541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6232 of 2025 1 - Girwar Dewangan S/o Bishat Ram Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Pitaiband Ward No. 12, Dewanganpara, P.S. Rajim, District Gariyaband C.G. 2 - Komal @ Chhannu Ram Dewangan S/o Bishat Ram Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Pitaiband Ward No. 12, Dewanganpara, P.S. Rajim, District Gariyaband C.G. 3 - Ritesh Yadav S/o Bhau Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Ram Janki Mohalla Ward No. 16, Gobranawapara, District - Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Rajim, District – Gariyaband, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station – Rajim, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a secret information was received by the Police of Police Station – Rajim, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) through the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police has seized a total of 5.800 Kgs. of Ganja from the possession of the present applicants No.1 and 2 and on the basis of the memorandum RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 statement the applicant No.3 was arrested. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested by the Police and the aforesaid offence has been registered. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is also submitted that from the possession of the applicants intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the possession of the applicants only 5.800 Kgs of Ganja has been seized. It is further submitted that there are no any criminal antecedents of the applicant No.3 and there are 6 criminal antecedents of the applicant No.1 which have been disposed of, and there is 1 criminal antecedent of the applicant No.2 under the NDPS Act, and they are in jail since 07.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and there are no any criminal antecedents of the applicant No.3 and there are 6 criminal antecedents of the applicant No.1 which have been disposed of, and there is 1 criminal antecedent of the applicant No.2 under the NDPS Act which is pending. It is submitted that a total of 5.800 Kgs of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the applicants No.1 and 2 and on the basis of the memorandum statement the applicant No.3 was arrested, therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is 1 criminal antecedent of the applicant No.2 under the NDPS Act which is pending, thus, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant No.2 on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant No.2 – Komal @ Chhannu Ram Dewangan involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station – Rajim, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. So far as the applicant No.1 and 3 are concerned, considering the quantity of Ganja seized from his possession i.e. a total of 5.800 Kgs, which is less than the commercial quantity. Also considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the applicant No.3 and there are 6 criminal antecedents of the applicant No.1 which have been disposed of, and further that the applicants No.1 and 3 are in jail since 07.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime, I am of the opinion that the applicants No.1 and 3 are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 4 9. 4 9. Let applicant No.1 and 3 – Girwar Dewangan and Ritesh Yadav involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station – Rajim, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 5 10. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar